"Ned Lamont must "redeploy" to support Lieberman."

[Emit]

BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, August 21, 2006 3:53 p.m. EDT

Declare Victory, Get Out
They said they would be greeted as liberators for toppling the old regime. Instead, they find themselves caught in a quagmire--a vicious, unwinnable civil war with incalculable costs in both resources and prestige.

We refer, of course, to the Democrats in Connecticut.

An exchange between "TPM reader BM" and Angry Left blogger Steve Gilliard illustrates their predicament going into an intraparty general election race between Sen. Joe Lieberman, now an independent, and Democratic nominee Ned Lamont.

~snip~

It looks as though Lieberman is in the race to stay--but there is an answer to the Democrats' quandary. For the good of the party, Lamont could throw his support to Lieberman. This would leave the incumbent running essentially unopposed, neutralizing the "flying wedge" and allowing the Democrats to concentrate on beating Republicans.

Lamont could declare that he made his point by winning the primary, but his own ambitions are less important than the party. He could then redeploy, going on the road with Lieberman, campaigning for Democratic House challengers in Connecticut and for Democratic Senate candidates elsewhere. Rather than stay in a race he is likely to lose, Lamont could prove he understands his own dictum: " 'Stay the course' is not a winning strategy."

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008827

[Tom Joad]

1. What a piece of idiocy.

[Emit]

11. Isn't though?

The Bush bots love Taranto.

[w13rd0]

2. James Taranto

is on crack. 50% voter turnout for the primary, and he wants Lamont to concede? Based on the fact that Lieberman has widespread support among REPUBLICANS? Why the fuck don't we just kick him out of the Party, force him to join the GOP, THEN endorse him and let him run unopposed, which is apparently how his supporters and boosters seem to think it should work...

[jsamuel]

3. heaven forbid Lieberman respect the outcome of the primary instead

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Lieberman *did* respect the outcome of the primary.

He's not running as the Democratic candidate for the Senate. That's what the primary was about.

[WI_DEM]

13. No, he lost the primary and is so in love with power that he decided

to organize a party of one and he is the one who might be endangering democratic unity in the state and hurt our congressional candidates in the state (we have the opportunity to pick up three seats) because to win Lieberman must make sure he gets lots of Republicans to vote for him and when they are voting for him they will also vote for their congressional candidates.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. To break your argument up:

"No, he lost the primary..."

Yes, perfectly true. However, the issue at stake in the Primary was "who will be the Democratic candidate", not "who will be the Senator"; losing it didn't place any obligation on Lieberman not to run without the Democratic endorsement.

"...and is so in love with power that he decided to organize a party of one..."

Debateable. It may be the case that he's going to all the trouble simply out of love of power, but I think it far more likely that he genuinely believes that he'll make a better Senator than either Lamont or Schlessinger, and so has a duty to his constituents to run; most of them seem to agree with him.

"...and he is the one who might be endangering democratic unity..."

Yes, true, although it's worth noting that Lamont's decision to challenge him, while perfectly justifiable, was clearly not the best decision for the Democratic party (for the reasons you've outlined below) that *he* could have made. But yes, Lieberman's actions in this case have clearly been directly contrary to the interests of both the Democratic party and progressive politics.

"...in the state and hurt our congressional candidates in the state (we have the opportunity to pick up three seats) because to win Lieberman must make sure he gets lots of Republicans to vote for him and when they are voting for him they will also vote for their congressional candidates."

Perfectly true (so far as I know), although it would benefit from some more punctuation.

[Redneck Socialist]

27. "...has a duty to his constituents to run..."

LOL! That's some great stuff there. What? Oh wait. You're serious?

"I think it far more likely that he genuinely believes that he'll make a better Senator...most of them <his constituents> seem to agree with him."

Most of his Democratic constituents just told him to pack his bags. Those very same folks granted Joey his position of power in the first place so a modicum of respect for their views seems in order. However Joe's clearly built up so much momentum he doesn't see it that way.

[TankLV]

29. More utter and compelt BULLSHIT!

I thought the OP article was bad enough, but you have to stink up the place on top of it with your twisted REPUKE "logic".

Go away - just go...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. And the same to you.

Insult is seldom a good substitute for rebuttal.

There's no such thing as "Repuke logic"; just logic and absence thereof. If an argument is logical, then even if it's advanced by Republicans it's still right.

[Guaranteed]

19. No, you're right. He just betrayed the party

is all, so he's not a Democrat anymore.

But, you're right, he's not contesting the election.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. I think of it differently.

The reason I disapprove of what Lieberman is doing is because it's bad for the cause of progressive politics. I don't regard "betraying a party" as a crime - I don't think political parties deserve loyalty (although I *do* think that if you're elected on a party ticket you have a duty to remain on it for the duration of that term; not doing so is betraying the electorate, not just the party).

I think there are two standards to judge political actions by; the specific and the impartial.

The first is "is this going to make America a better place"; i.e. "is this good for the cause of progressive politics", in general. By this argument, Lieberman has done something wrong, but he's still less bad than pretty much any Republican.

The second is "is this political fair play; is it a legitimate tactic". By this standard, I don't think Lieberman himself has done aything wrong. I *do* think that those people who continue to hold positions in the Democratic party relevant to the Connecticut election and are supporting him are doing something wrong by this standard, though.

[Eric J in MN]

22. When a man enters a Democratic primary and loses...

...he shouldn't run for the same office the same year. That is disrepecting Democratic voters.

I'd say the same thing if Lamont had lost and kept running.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. If there had been an official condition like that then I'd agree with you.

However, I don't think it's a standard that there's any justification for applying unofficially. If the primary doesn't say "you must do this if you enter", I don't think there's any grounds for demanding that someone does.

[Eric J in MN]

31. Because it's legal, that makes it OK for Lieberman to...

...continue to divide Democrats after the primary?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. No, but it makes it *legitimate* for him to do so.

See either my post 24 or my journal for what I mean by the difference.

I don't think he is doing the right thing; I don't think that the reason that it is the wrong thing was because it was "dishonourable" or not fair play or against the code of conduct of politics.

[DarienComp]

4. He thinks he's so clever, doesn't he, with his references to the Iraq War.

I love his basic point as well: Ned Lamont must drop out because he won.

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. Hahahahaa! Stop it! You made milk come out my nose!

What a fucking idiot that author is. He's suggesting we subvert the votes of Connecticut Democrats, completely ignore them in fact, and then rub the voters noses, once more, in a pile of shit called Lieberman? Hahahahaaaa!



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[AX10]

6. This is such crap!

Lamont won! He won the party's nomination! Lieberman should drop out.

[EFerrari]

7. Is it my imagination or are Junior's speech writers now

placing propaganda pieces against Lamont?

[MissWaverly]

8. This drivel appeared in the Wall Street Journal

How is our reckless invasion into Iraq and toppling Saddam equivalent to the Democrats of
Connecticut using their rights as citizens to vote for Lamont instead of the other candidate
on the ballot. Did this involve shock and awe, did the democrats invade DC to topple a brutal
and ruthless dictator only to be beaten back by his loyal followers. What is this? Should
we then answer to a higher power and not allow our elected representatives to take their in
place in DC but to be replaced by appointed representatives. What type of democracy is this,
it sounds like old Joe Stalin to me.

[niallmac]

9. Principles aren't people in charge of High Schools

Ethics aren't Russian money and morals aren't paintings on walls.

Do the people who write such spineless theory know what a cause is and
why it's worth fighting for?

"Cave and Be a Slave" should have been the title.

[WI_DEM]

12. Well, of course this is just what Lieberman would want, but Lamont

won the primary fair and square and is the Democratic nominee. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Case closed.

[Cha]

14. Who is this idiot?

Does he think he's funny..shittin' around with our Democracy?

[Eric J in MN]

20. Yes, he thinks he's hillarious, and that the Iraq War is hillarious.

He cracks himself up.

[LittleClarkie]

16. Why the hell should the winner of the primary throw his support anywhere?

Are they so afraid he'll win?

[Eric J in MN]

21. The author thinks he's funny. NT

NT

[LittleClarkie]

30. What's more frightening is the thought that

the author is dead serious

[Eric J in MN]

33. He knows Ned Lamont isn't going to drop out.

The author isn't that kind of idiot.

[Me.]

17. They've Been Scared Insane

Right out of their minds for who in their right mind would write drivel like this? Perhaps others of the same ilk like Beinart and Brooks who think the wrong type of voters shouldn't be allowed to vote, you know the ones, the ones who know the pundits and beltway politicians have essentially betrayed the trust they once held. The ones who want to throw the cushy lived bums out. This idea is so ludicrous it's laughable. I had to check and make sure it wasn't something from the Onion. Good for Lamont, he's frightened them so badly they're dribbling.

*shadow government*

[Eric J in MN]

18. Why do readers of "Talking Points Memo" only use their

...initials when writing a guest-article there?

[ikojo]

23. Wow!!! If the Democrats get Ned Lamont, the winner, to

drop out of this race because Holy Joe LIEberman throws a fit then why support such a party? I say the Dems put as much money as possible into the Connecticut race so Lamont beats LIEberman hands down.

Since when does the winner roll over for the loser? Oh wait...2000 and 2004 presidential elections come to mind..The Democrats have quite the history of rolling over for the loser.

[TankLV]

26. Just what fucking bizarro world do these IDIOTIC TRAITORS live in?!?!

This makes me steaming mad.

If they reversed the names with the same suggestions, then maybe we can talk.

HELLO?!!!!

LIEberman - LOSERMAN - LOST - get over it- move on!

LAMONT WON - throw you support behind the WINNER!

What a fucking fuckup...

[Emit]

28. I know!

Black is white...
Up is down...
Peace is war...

[damntexdem]

32. Why run this crap?

Nonsense like this is so far out that its only effect can be to stun.

[LTR]

36. Taranto is a dumb fat fuck

This is the same idiot that occasionally cherrypicks DU threads as his 'proof' that Democrats are insane.

Ignore this piece of shit. This guy single-handedly embarasses what otherwise is a decent newspaper. How the hell does the WSJ employ this asshat?

[Eric J in MN]

38. The Wall St. Journal publishes right-wing editorials every day. NT

NT

[patricia92243]

37. Stupidest thing I've read lately. Gag!

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Uh, Lieberman isn't a Democrat anymore.

The only party he gives a shit about is the Joementum Party.

[Marr]

40. More humble advice from the far right. Yeah, that's worth taking to heart.

I heard Rush Limbaugh today asking why Democrats don't love Lieberman. He then praised Lieberman for 10 minutes. Limbaugh doesn't understand why we don't agree with his politics.

[BlooInBloo]

41. Damn concern trolls.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. This guy is actually asking Lamont to concede for the sake of party unity?

What a complete and utter crock of shit. Senator Liberman lost the primary and if he had any respect for the party he would drop out.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. This is from the WSJ, of course.

Take that opinion page of theirs, use it to roll some of what Toranto was smoking when he wrote this and pass me some, please.

[Briarius]

44. I don't think I've ever hear a more asinine

backwards, fucked up statement than this. Republican logic at its best.

[johnnydrama]

45. no way

This could only make any kind of sense, if somehow Lamont wouldn't win the election vs the Republican.

Since he'd probably get 70% of the vote, why would he be the one to drop out? He won the friggin primary.